Deep DiscussionHave a seat at Deep Discussion for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be.
Come be a knight.

This scenario could have happened to any person coming home late. You walk into “your” likely dark apartment and an intruder attacks you. You defend yourself and end up killing the intruder. When you turn on the lights you find out it’s not “your” apartment. Nothing to do with being a cop.

I want to know how the door opened. If her key worked, that lends credence to her claim. Was the apartment the same door number as hers? Lot of apartment hallways look like. Tired person could have walked on autopilot to the correct door but wrong floor. 455 instead of 555.

I've never accidentally broken into someone's home and shot them, it couldn't happen to anyone, and if it did, they'd be jailed and exposed to the public.

I've never accidentally broken into someone's home and shot them, it couldn't happen to anyone, and if it did, they'd be jailed and exposed to the public.

Just because you haven't done it, doesn't mean others haven't. Most of the people who enter wrong houses are drunks but I can see people who are super tired making the same mistake. Doesn't absolve her of responsibility. The officer has been arrested and jailed. Out on bond.

This scenario could have happened to any person coming home late. You walk into “your” likely dark apartment and an intruder attacks you. You defend yourself and end up killing the intruder. When you turn on the lights you find out it’s not “your” apartment. Nothing to do with being a cop.

I want to know how the door opened. If her key worked, that lends credence to her claim. Was the apartment the same door number as hers? Lot of apartment hallways look like. Tired person could have walked on autopilot to the correct door but wrong floor. 455 instead of 555.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands

I mean, the shoot first ask later mantra that many, many cops have is absolutely at fault here. Although it sounds pretty fishy to me.

I mean fair LDS, asking question I think is important, but I think something both you and hands are missing is probably the person's own response. This Amber Guyger.

The action of this shooting happened after she was off her police shift and off-duty (just in uniform). And according to her testimony, she thought she was being robbed. This calls into question, why she shot first.

I'll put here a little bit of it, but have link source for peeps to read.

Quote:

Internet rumors claiming the two knew each other and were dating were proven to be false, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Last year, Guyger shot a man who allegedly tried to take away her Taser. That shooting was found to be justified and the man was sent to prison for two years for taking an officer's weapon.

Guyger was not arrested for killing Jean until almost three days after the shooting. Dallas Police Chief Renee Hall said on Friday that authorities were preparing a warrant to arrest Guyger on a manslaughter charge, but that was postponed when the investigation was handed over to the Texas Rangers.

and this,

Quote:

At a press conference Sunday, Merritt said he has presented video evidence and witness testimony to police that contradicts the police narrative of what occurred during the shooting. However, he did not give specifics on what that evidence shows.

There are still some details unknown about how the two interacted according to the tweet by Nicole Manna (the person who talked about this on twitter)

So, overall I think Hands does have a point on the "shoot first ask questions later" thing. While I disagree that it's overly engrained into police culture, at the same time it does exist in officers and situations.

Though, I will say LDS would be correct in wanting more information about it, and it was that information that apparently has led to an arrest, with video evidence. I disagree with the department in not doing the arrest warrant, however, the funny thing about law and self defense is that if you're only witness is the shooter, it can get a little messy in putting the pieces and stuff together.

Overall, this was a tragic case and the perpetrator being very irresponsible with police materials at best, to essentially intentionally doing manslaughter at worst. Time is something not every case can have and the delay's in the investigations can be troubling. This is where I think the police department can step up their game, along with fulfilling proper training and assessing their unit's abilities to respond to a proper adrenaline rush test.

Overall, I don't have an answer about police culture in general, just that this "officer" in particular is in some deep hot water and arrested (albeit a bit later than they should have).

__________________

“I’ve been to places I wouldn’t have visited before. I get to see different things, which is important. It gives me new experiences to draw from.” ~Hidetaka Miyazaki [creator of Bloodborne]

I do think there's an issue with some police being too trigger-happy. I get that being a cop can be absolutely terrifying; at times, you're up against really awful people who really will do everything they can to kill you, and that's scary. But that's what professionalism is about: doing your job the right way in spite of the obstacles set against you. If you aren't willing or able to do things the right way even in a tense and potentially fatal situation, then what the hell are you doing in that line of work?

I really believe that most cops take the job they take because they want to help people, but the reality is that just wanting to help people isn't enough. If you cave under pressure, then you have no business wearing the badge and you're in the wrong line of work; get out before you get someone killed. There are other ways you can help people that won't also put them at risk.

Just because you haven't done it, doesn't mean others haven't. Most of the people who enter wrong houses are drunks but I can see people who are super tired making the same mistake. Doesn't absolve her of responsibility. The officer has been arrested and jailed. Out on bond.

How did she enter the home? Did she warn the resident she was armed? Did she turn the light on? She's a trained professional. She wasn't drunk or high. This isn't an easy mistake to make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vragon2.0

So, overall I think Hands does have a point on the "shoot first ask questions later" thing. While I disagree that it's overly engrained into police culture, at the same time it does exist in officers and situations.

I mean, the level of unarmed people killed by police doesn't happen in Germany, Britain, Sweden, Canada, Australia, China, Japan, Poland, Vietnam etc. It's something that only happens in two scenarios. Incredibly corrupt countries and the United States. Other countries train to deescalate situations, not shoot people for things like running away or following orders. Its deeply ingrained in America's police culture in a way that it is not in the rest of the developed world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BronzeHeart92

Yeah, true... But then again, Police is a respected institution over here in Finland. And if at any point an officer absolutely must shoot someone, investigation as to why is sure to follow.

Same as most countries. Shooting someone is the last resort in Britain, not the first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twocows

I do think there's an issue with some police being too trigger-happy. I get that being a cop can be absolutely terrifying; at times, you're up against really awful people who really will do everything they can to kill you, and that's scary. But that's what professionalism is about: doing your job the right way in spite of the obstacles set against you. If you aren't willing or able to do things the right way even in a tense and potentially fatal situation, then what the hell are you doing in that line of work?

I really believe that most cops take the job they take because they want to help people, but the reality is that just wanting to help people isn't enough. If you cave under pressure, then you have no business wearing the badge and you're in the wrong line of work; get out before you get someone killed. There are other ways you can help people that won't also put them at risk.

The thing is, the military manage to be in war zones without breaking the rules of engagement. They manage to keep their cool in incredibly hostile environments where they know they're public enemy #1. There are so, so many examples of former and current military folks talking about how poor the Police are trained and subsequently act.

So identical, or almost so, hallways, apartment floor plans, a door that opened easily, just getting off a 15 hour shift and the late hour and I can see this happening easily. Shouldn’t prevent a conviction. The law doesn’t care if you made a mistake. Might be negligent homicide.

Quote:

I mean, the level of unarmed people killed by police doesn't happen in Germany, Britain, Sweden, Canada, Australia, China, Japan, Poland, Vietnam etc. It's something that only happens in two scenarios. Incredibly corrupt countries and the United States. Other countries train to deescalate situations, not shoot people for things like running away or following orders. Its deeply ingrained in America's police culture in a way that it is not in the rest of the developed world.

First you’re making an apples and oranges comparison. Every country has different issues that affect law enforcement issues. In addition, the officers throughout the US are trained to de escalate the situation rather than just shoot people. Yes, there are situations that occur that shouldn’t have. It also doesn’t help that the media tends to run with the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative for a few weeks/months while the investigation is ongoing. The US is also very open in the reporting of the shootings while other countries simply aren’t. And “unarmed” means jack muk when people either willfully attack police officers or act in a manner to convince officers that they are a threat.

Quote:

Same as most countries. Shooting someone is the last resort in Britain, not the first.

If shooting someone was the first resort in the US, the number of deceased people would be far higher.

Quote:

The thing is, the military manage to be in war zones without breaking the rules of engagement. They manage to keep their cool in incredibly hostile environments where they know they're public enemy #1. There are so, so many examples of former and current military folks talking about how poor the Police are trained and subsequently act.

LOL. Are you seriously comparing police response to military response? They have completely different training criteria, goals, and deployment. Police officers travel in pairs at the most. They have bullet resistant vests and handguns for immediate use with a shotgun and/or rifle available in the car if they have the time to get it. The army travels in larger groups with lots more body armor and weapons. A criminal isn’t likely to try and kill an army dude because his many friends will respond immediately.

So identical, or almost so, hallways, apartment floor plans, a door that opened easily, just getting off a 15 hour shift and the late hour and I can see this happening easily. Shouldn’t prevent a conviction. The law doesn’t care if you made a mistake. Might be negligent homicide.

So we're to believe he was just stood in the pitch black of his own home? Why didn't she turn the light on as she entered? What trained law officer would open fire blindly into the dark without being able to properly acquire a target?

Quote:

First you’re making an apples and oranges comparison.

No, I'm not.

Quote:

Every country has different issues that affect law enforcement issues.

Most countries don't have instances of officers breaking into a neighbor's home and opening fire on them, I'll give you that.

Quote:

In addition, the officers throughout the US are trained to de escalate the situation rather than just shoot people.

Maybe we could talk about Philando Castile, another innocent man gunned down (this time in front of a child) for following orders and the law.

Or Tamir Rice, a child playing with a toy

Or any of the other thousands of unarmed people killed by police in the past two decades?

British police have killed 35 people in the same time period, most of who were armed themselves. America has killed nearly 9000.

Quote:

It also doesn’t help that the media tends to run with the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative for a few weeks/months while the investigation is ongoing.

"it doesnt help the media reports on the shootings"

Quote:

while other countries simply aren’t

This is an outright lie.

Quote:

And “unarmed” means jack muk when people either willfully attack police officers or act in a manner to convince officers that they are a threat.

Or running away, or complying with orders, or sitting in their own home, or being on the phone in their grandmother's garden, or playing with toys etc

Quote:

If shooting someone was the first resort in the US, the number of deceased people would be far higher.

It is. It's wildly higher than all comparable nations.

Quote:

LOL. Are you seriously comparing police response to military response?

Yes. Considering the Police are equipped like a military, have ranks like a military and are engaging in apparent firefights like a military, it's really not wild to compare them. Its a lot less wild than pretending America is a unique country that cannot be compared to others.

Quote:

They have completely different training criteria

Yes, the military branches train you to handle pressure and react appropriately, something the police sorely need.

Quote:

Police officers travel in pairs at the most.

Yeah, you never see more than two police in any one place! Ever!

Quote:

They have bullet resistant vests and handguns for immediate use with a shotgun and/or rifle available in the car if they have the time to get it.

I forgot only shotguns and rifles are deadly.

Quote:

The army travels in larger groups with lots more body armor and weapons.

Those poor, underequipped cops.

Quote:

A criminal isn’t likely to try and kill an army dude because his many friends will respond immediately.

Yeah, no local insurgent has ever attacked any serving military unit. If the army can resist shooting up teens who throw molotovs and the like at them, the cops should be able to resist shooting people in the back for fleeing.

So we're to believe he was just stood in the pitch black of his own home? Why didn't she turn the light on as she entered? What trained law officer would open fire blindly into the dark without being able to properly acquire a target?

I don’t know what he did or did not do. I was only posting what she said. I don’t know why she didn’t hit the light switch. Maybe there was sufficient light to see the “intruder” but not enough to see the apartment furniture. Considering that she hit and killed him, she wasn’t “firing blindly”.

Quote:

No, I'm not.

You really are.

Quote:

Most countries don't have instances of officers breaking into a neighbor's home and opening fire on them, I'll give you that.

. This event doesn’t happen often. I’m only aware of this one event. Which can be explained by the identical floor plans and unlocked door as a tragic accident rather than a cop simply murdering the neighbor. Still won’t help at trial.

Which is why America is sending cops abroad to learn basic protocol? “

That’s not “basic protocol”. That’s a standard event that happens fairly often. Officers go to different countries to try and learn different tactics. Would also point out that Scotland officers face knives more than guns and the US faces guns more often. We also have a more varied population base.

Quote:

Like Daniel Shaver, a man completely innocent of any crime, having his life taken away for following an increasingly contradictory list of instructions from an armed officer?

officer should have got prison time.

Quote:

The same officer with a history of violence toward innocent people. the same officer who was cleared of any wrong doing despite the abhorrent video evidence.

Take it up with the jury.

Quote:

Maybe we could talk about Philando Castile, another innocent man gunned down (this time in front of a child) for following orders and the law.

. Debatable. A lot of concealed carry classes stress that you don’t do a thing without clear instructions from the officer.

Quote:

Or Tamir Rice, a child playing with a toy

. Officers responding to call of person with gun were NOT told that caller thought it was a toy. Kids with real guns do kill people.

Quote:

Or any of the other thousands of unarmed people killed by police in the past two decades?

. Thousands? Citation needed.

Quote:

British police have killed 35 people in the same time period, most of who were armed themselves. America has killed nearly 9000.

Quote:

"it doesnt help the media reports on the shootings"

Don’t do that. I clearly meant how the media reports and not that the report at all. Michael Brown got months of media reports on how he was kneeling with hands up before being murdered yet the actual evidence has him attacking the officer while the officer was in car.

Quote:

Or running away, or complying with orders, or sitting in their own home, or being on the phone in their grandmother's garden, or playing with toys etc

Out of how many police encounters?

Quote:

It is. It's wildly higher than all comparable nations.

Comparison based on what data? Which countries? Why those countries? Does the data take into account that the US has a constitutional right to own guns and those other countries don’t?

Quote:

Yes. Considering the Police are equipped like a military, have ranks like a military and are engaging in apparent firefights like a military, it's really not wild to compare them. Its a lot less wild than pretending America is a unique country that cannot be compared to others.

The police have similar things and ranks like the military. The police are often expected to be first responders to events like terrorist attacks. That does not mean they are trained like the military. https://work.chron.com/police-academies-like-military-boot-camp-18550.html
There would be huge objections by various groups if the police were getting the same training as the military.

Yes, the military branches train you to handle pressure and react appropriately, something the police sorely need.

The training is different. The military training is “is it a threat to the base, the mission, or me? No. Not my problem.” The police training is to respond and de escalate or make arrests according to the law.

Quote:

Yeah, you never see more than two police in any one place! Ever!

Riot police and SWAT teams are different from the standard street level police and you should very well know that.

Quote:

I forgot only shotguns and rifles are deadly.

. Who said that? The standard weapon for a police officer is a handgun while a soldier on patrol utilizes a rifle. There is also a huge difference in amount of ammo carried and how much range time a police officer gets as opposed to the military.

Quote:

Those poor, underequipped cops.

. Guarantee that the military is better equipped than the police.

Quote:

Yeah, no local insurgent has ever attacked any serving military unit. If the army can resist shooting up teens who throw molotovs and the like at them, the cops should be able to resist shooting people in the back for fleeing.

. Feel free to link to where US military forces haven’t shot someone throwing “Molotov’s and the like”.

Edit: I don’t disagree that there have been problem cases inside the various police departments across the US. It’s a big country and cops are human after all. Cops who break the law should go to jail. I do disagree that it’s a institutional problem. The vast majority of police officer interactions are peaceful and law abiding.

I don’t know what he did or did not do. I was only posting what she said. I don’t know why she didn’t hit the light switch. Maybe there was sufficient light to see the “intruder” but not enough to see the apartment furniture. Considering that she hit and killed him, she wasn’t “firing blindly”.

She said she fired twice, she hit him once. It's not hard to meet your target when they're stationary at that close of a range with a handgun. If she could see him clear enough for an on target shot then she should have seen who it was. So either she fired blindly into a dark room like her story says, or she had time to adjust the target and hit center mass, which was time to deescalate and evaluate. Whatever way you spin it, she's either guilty of negligible homicide or outright homicide.

Quote:

You really are.

I'm really not.

Quote:

This event doesn’t happen often. I’m only aware of this one event. Which can be explained by the identical floor plans and unlocked door as a tragic accident rather than a cop simply murdering the neighbor. Still won’t help at trial.

This thread is called "Police Brutality in the USA" not "dumb cop breaks into another person's home and kills them". There's a lot more at play in both the threads and my replies than one incident.

That’s a standard event that happens fairly often. Officers go to different countries to try and learn different tactics.

Yes, just for most nations it isnt "how not to shoot people"

Quote:

Would also point out that Scotland officers face knives more than guns and the US faces guns more often. We also have a more varied population base.

It might surprise you, but Scottish police also face down menacing children with toy guns, nefariously dangerous situations of someone fleeing and the most frightening of all, a person following instructions.

We know in 2014 that the police reported killing 94 unarmed people. We also know many of them do not report it, we also know that they are not reporting unarmed shootings that did not result in death. In the two decade timeframe I've given you it's beyond reasonable to put the number of unarmed people in the US shot by police in the thousands.

Quote:

Don’t do that. I clearly meant how the media reports and not that the report at all. Michael Brown got months of media reports on how he was kneeling with hands up before being murdered yet the actual evidence has him attacking the officer while the officer was in car.

Oh the same Michael Brown who had fled into a busy street where Officer Wilson fired off 10 rounds, with only six connecting with Brown, one of which is believed to have happened in the initial struggle in the car? What was stopping one of those wildly fired bullets hitting a bystander other than luck?

Quote:

Out of how many police encounters?

See above, the police are not required to provide numbers and most depts to not.

Quote:

Comparison based on what data? Which countries? Why those countries? Does the data take into account that the US has a constitutional right to own guns and those other countries don’t?

Finland, Canada, Iceland, Norway, take your pick. Whilst yes, no other country on earth has more firearms than people, these are all countries who have a relatively high number of firearms per head. None of them have the issues you have. Those numbers also only account for registered and legally owned firearms.

Quote:

The police have similar things and ranks like the military. The police are often expected to be first responders to events like terrorist attacks. That does not mean they are trained like the military.

I never said they were trained like the military? But thanks for making the point for me. They have military level equipment, but not even the basic training.

Quote:

The training is different. The military training is “is it a threat to the base, the mission, or me? No. Not my problem.” The police training is to respond and de escalate or make arrests according to the law.

The Military are taught to deescalate where possible.

Quote:

Riot police and SWAT teams are different from the standard street level police and you should very well know that.

NYPD, not SWAT.

Routine neighborhood policing in Philly. Not SWAT.

Michigan, not SWAT.

The idea that beat cops are the standard is deliberately misleading. They're also not in some army of two situation, they work in pairs on a beat, in close proximity and constant contact with other pairs to squad up if needed. It's not important to my example regardless.

Quote:

Who said that? The standard weapon for a police officer is a handgun

No, the rifle in the car is standard issue. They do not carry at all times out of convenience, not because it's not issued to them.

ROE provide restraints on commander’s actions consistent
with both domestic and international law and may, under
certain circumstances, impose greater restrictions on action
than those required by the law. Commanders must be
intimately familiar with the legal basis for their mission. The
commander may issue ROE to reinforce principles of the
Law of War, such as the general prohibitions on the
destruction of religious or cultural property (when such
property is used in accordance with its protected purpose),
and minimization of injury to civilians

It goes on from there, but it's taught that local youths throwing rocks and low end molotovs and the like at you is not something you open fire at.

Quote:

The vast majority of police officer interactions are peaceful and law abiding.

But enough of them are not. All people are asking for is better standards and training from govt employees tasked with public safety. Its not a big ask.

She said she fired twice, she hit him once. It's not hard to meet your target when they're stationary at that close of a range with a handgun. If she could see him clear enough for an on target shot then she should have seen who it was. So either she fired blindly into a dark room like her story says, or she had time to adjust the target and hit center mass, which was time to deescalate and evaluate. Whatever way you spin it, she's either guilty of negligible homicide or outright homicide.

Who says he was stationary? Just because you can see a figure in a dark room doesn’t mean you can see them clearly enough to identify that person. Is there anything being said that she knew this person? Some of these shootings take place in seconds. It’s your opinion that there was time to desescalate.

Manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Quote:

This thread is called "Police Brutality in the USA" not "dumb cop breaks into another person's home and kills them". There's a lot more at play in both the threads and my replies than one incident.

. This particular incident isn’t police brutality.

Quote:

Yes, just for most nations it isnt "how not to shoot people"

Again, most police encounters do not end with police shooting people.

Quote:

It might surprise you, but Scottish police also face down menacing children with toy guns, nefariously dangerous situations of someone fleeing and the most frightening of all, a person following instructions.

We know in 2014 that the police reported killing 94 unarmed people. We also know many of them do not report it, we also know that they are not reporting unarmed shootings that did not result in death. In the two decade timeframe I've given you it's beyond reasonable to put the number of unarmed people in the US shot by police in the thousands.

Even those numbers ignore what the situation really was. How many of the 9,000 killed were engaged in criminal activity? Of the 94 “unarmed” how many were suicide by cop or trying to fake out the cop so the criminal could try and get away?

Quote:

Oh the same Michael Brown who had fled into a busy street where Officer Wilson fired off 10 rounds, with only six connecting with Brown, one of which is believed to have happened in the initial struggle in the car? What was stopping one of those wildly fired bullets hitting a bystander other than luck?

. Nice job on moving the goal posts. Was the officer supposed to let Brown try and kill him?

Quote:

See above, the police are not required to provide numbers and most depts to not.

Police calls are usually counted and published. Helps departments ask for better budgets.

Finland, Canada, Iceland, Norway, take your pick. Whilst yes, no other country on earth has more firearms than people, these are all countries who have a relatively high number of firearms per head. None of them have the issues you have. Those numbers also only account for registered and legally owned firearms.

The US also has a more diverse and far larger population that those countries. Makes comparisons difficult.

Quote:

Inever said they were trained like the military? But thanks for making the point for me. They have military level equipment, but not even the basic training.

The police have a few similar things. They certainly don’t have tanks, artillery, bazookas and what not.

Quote:

The Military are taught to deescalate where possible.

I think it’s more that the military waits for you to escalate or prove hostile than that they de escalate.

Quote:

NYPD, not SWAT.

Routine neighborhood policing in Philly. Not SWAT.

Michigan, not SWAT.

. Two of the three clearly list the location as “markets” and festivals. Completely different scenarios than the usual one or two officers in a patrol car driving around.

Quote:

The idea that beat cops are the standard is deliberately misleading. They're also not in some army of two situation, they work in pairs on a beat, in close proximity and constant contact with other pairs to squad up if needed. It's not important to my example regardless.

. The claim that cops travel in large groups in SWAT gear is misleading. Depending on city, location and time of day, the closest officer can be pretty far. When seconds count, police are minutes+ away.

Quote:

No, the rifle in the car is standard issue. They do not carry at all times out of convenience, not because it's not issued to them.

. Usually locked in the trunk.

Quote:

Rifle blah.

Whatever.

Quote:

Which comes back to bad training.

. I think it’s more about time and money. The military pays for the range time and makes you go. The police departments don’t. Of course they have different priorities. Law enforcement versus killing the enemy soldiers.

Quote:

In what sense? The military has LAVs to deal with rocket fire, IEDs and other armoured units. The police have LAVs to deal with non violent protesters.

It goes on from there, but it's taught that local youths throwing rocks and low end molotovs and the like at you is not something you open fire at.

It doesn’t say any such thing in there. It does cover proportional response and self defense. Someone throwing rocks can get a different response than someone trying to set you on fire.

Quote:

But enough of them are not. All people are asking for is better standards and training from govt employees tasked with public safety. Its not a big ask.

Some of the incidents are already violations of standards and training. Others aren’t violations and were in fact completely legal responses (Brown) but armchair quarterbacks want completely different standards and responses.

- Finland, Canada, Iceland, Norway, take your pick. Whilst yes, no other country on earth has more firearms than people, these are all countries who have a relatively high number of firearms per head. None of them have the issues you have. Those numbers also only account for registered and legally owned firearms.

More than likely, these firearms are NOT meant for self-defence related purposes but for hunting and the like. After all, these countries and more don't have the same sort of gun rights America has, yes? And it would be quite a hassle too considering the amount of paperwork involved.

The thing is, the military manage to be in war zones without breaking the rules of engagement. They manage to keep their cool in incredibly hostile environments where they know they're public enemy #1. There are so, so many examples of former and current military folks talking about how poor the Police are trained and subsequently act.

So I'm going to suggest something real quick.
What are some ideas to help minimize this? I'd assume a complex problem requires a complex solution, so I'd be interested in hearing peeps thoughts on how to aid in this and seeing if some form of interesting details could come from it.

(Cause so far I'm seeing a lot of cherry picking and well....back and forth)

__________________

“I’ve been to places I wouldn’t have visited before. I get to see different things, which is important. It gives me new experiences to draw from.” ~Hidetaka Miyazaki [creator of Bloodborne]

This might be only tangentially related to begin with but, in that particular instance, it seems to me that a big problem is that officer or civilian, whatever the mindset, the immediate reaction to seeing what is perceived to be a simple home invasion is to shoot to kill. This isn't a mindset that exists in any other first world countries and the only other places where it is tend to be warzones.

I think that, a part of this issue being so complex is that the police element is only a small fragment of a much greater problem. Vragon isn't wrong in pointing out how complex this is. The way I see it, there is an undeniable gun culture in the US. Whatever side of the fence you are on with gun issues, you simply cannot deny that firearms are a far bigger part of US culture than that of anywhere else - and I would argue the only part of the US culture that is actually distinct from the cultures of other nations.

So you've already got a powder keg right there in a sense, it's a well known fact the US has more guns than people. We need to extend that though to consider that the use of the those firearms is also ingrained in that culture and even in US law. That is to say, not actively using your gun (although obviously that's in there) but how it is used. The US is one of very few places where civilians are out on the streets carrying firearms (concealed or otherwise), where owning a firearm for the purpose of "self-defence" is not only legal but often encouraged and where there is a devaluation of life in the sense that to shoot and kill a trespasser is not only legal if you claim you perceived them as a threat but also culturally acceptable and often perceived as heroic. You shot that burglar, you protected your home, you protected your family and you protected your freedom. You're not just a hero but you're a real American that defended traditional American values. Firearms in the US are symbolic of personal freedom and the idea of using your freedom cannon to protect your traditional values is ingrained in US law and culture.

So how does this factor in to police brutality? Well, police officers are still American people. Police training in the US is inherently tied to US gun culture because police officers are by requirement on the streets with a gun at their hip. Furthermore, this is a time of civil unrest in the US. A lot of people, conservatives and liberals alike, are angry and scared. Distrust and animosity against the police are at an all time high and that plus that same gun culture means it's really easy for a police officer to feel like everyone around them is an enemy when they put on that uniform. This ignoring things like institutionalised racism by the way, which is a factor that only exacerbates what I'm already talking about.

So yeah, this is a hugely complicated problem - and yes it is a problem. You have police walking around feeling like victims and targets instead of protectors, you have poor training routed in a culture of gun use, you have race issues, you have civil and political unrest and this is occurring within a country where the only defining cultural element is the ownership and use of firearms.

Personally I feel like the biggest factor in this whole web of related issues is the gun culture. These are all things that need addressing but I don't think you'll ever make this problem go away until something is done about the gun culture itself. Better training, improved race relations and political stabilisation would help tremendously but so long as there's this notion of shooting the criminal making you an American hero ingrained in the US cultural mindset then there's always going to be a disproportionate number of police shootings.

How do we fix that? Well, honestly I don't have a surefire 100% answer. I have some answers I believe would help the situation but the entire process itself would be extremely complicated and even then would require a sitting government who was invested in the cause and who held a strong enough majority to actually initiate the change. You're not going to get a chance at that until 2020 and even then - even if it's a landslide Democratic win with a progressive presidency - even then it'd be an uphill battle.

This post has been an essay already so I'll come back a bit later with what those suggestions are in a little while for those who are interested.

Thanks for your pitch Gimmepie. Yeah, guns definitely are a problem in USA as we speak. And again, only in USA would you ever get a gun for self-defence related purposes. There's a REASON why that's not the case everywhere else, especially europe.

Who says he was stationary? Just because you can see a figure in a dark room doesn’t mean you can see them clearly enough to identify that person. Is there anything being said that she knew this person? Some of these shootings take place in seconds. It’s your opinion that there was time to desescalate.

If it happened in seconds then she did not give him appropriate time to respond. She's also lying about the door. It wasn't ajar, it can't be ajar. People from the same apt. block are showing video demonstrations. The doors have a dead weight mechanism so they automatically shut if no one is holding them open.

That's highly debatable. Especially since the higher ups told the press to revoke a statement about the carpet and failed to arrest her for days. It's at the very least corruption. Which people are rightfully questioning

There's enough video evidence of the lead up and aftermath. We know Castile followed the right steps, we know the cop did not give reasonable time to respond or follow the right steps.

Quote:

Even those numbers ignore what the situation really was. How many of the 9,000 killed were engaged in criminal activity?

This is a gross attempt to justify shooting unarmed people lol. Criminal activity is not justification for cop to be judge, jury and executioner.

Quote:

Of the 94 “unarmed” how many were suicide by cop or trying to fake out the cop so the criminal could try and get away?

We don't know because cops notoriously do not release details on it. We know the number is higher, we know that we only have some states reporting in, we know that in Baltimore the cops were planting bb guns on people they shot.

Do you think that unit was providing accurate reports on unarmed shootings?

Quote:

Nice job on moving the goal posts. Was the officer supposed to let Brown try and kill him?

I was moving them back after you outright lied. Brown was shot after fleeing the car. He wasn't killed during the initial struggle. Wilson exited the vehicle after Brown fled and took pursuit on foot. We don't know exactly what happened, only that a wounded Brown turned around to face Wilson down the street. Wilson claims Brown, a 292 lb overweight man with a bullet wound, charged him after trying to flee. Other witnesses say Brown said don't shoot. We don't know because we don't have bodycam footage or any cctv apparently. What we do know is that Wilson opened fire 10 times into the general public.

Quote:

Police calls are usually counted and published. Helps departments ask for better budgets.

That has absolutely nothing to do with Police depts neglecting to provide death by cop statistics.

Quote:

The US also has a more diverse and far larger population that those countries. Makes comparisons difficult.

That's an absolute cop out. The only thing making comparisons difficult is your need to dodge the reality that America is an outlier here, not an exception.

Quote:

The police have a few similar things. They certainly don’t have tanks, artillery, bazookas and what not.

Neither do most units in the military.

The Police have LAVs, they're literally a step down from a tank. This is also the closest thing most infantry units will ever come to a tank or artillery. Those are specialized units. Its all well and good you claiming I cant use SWAT as an example of militarised police but you're here pretending GI Joe is running around with Call of Duty style access to tanks and Artillery.

Police did once have access to what was effectively an air strike, which they used on civilians.

I think it’s more that the military waits for you to escalate or prove hostile than that they de escalate.

Arguably so, however they are trained to try and deescalate situations with locals.

Quote:

Two of the three clearly list the location as “markets” and festivals. Completely different scenarios than the usual one or two officers in a patrol car driving around.

Your claim was the police never travel in anything above a pair, the picture disproves it.

Quote:

The claim that cops travel in large groups in SWAT gear is misleading.

The Swat pictures were clearly (as signaled by the quote above them) in response to your claim that the police have no access to military styled gear. It had nothing to do with your other claim that police only ever travel alone or in pairs. Please do not try and misrepresent the points by replacing context, especially in a forum where everyone can see the prior comments.

Quote:

Depending on city, location and time of day, the closest officer can be pretty far. When seconds count, police are minutes+ away.

When do seconds count? During a routine traffic stop? Or during a minor case of shoplifting?

Quote:

Usually locked in the trunk.

citation required.

Quote:

Whatever.

No, not whatever. If you are going to try and take that tangent then the least you could do is use remotely accurate terminology, I've let Bazooka slip despite the fact that the Bazooka was a recoilless rifle and not the term for all Rocket propelled grenades or anti tank infantry systems. What I won't have is outright misrepresentation of what equipment both parties actually use. Either shape up or ship out on this point.

Quote:

I think it’s more about time and money. The military pays for the range time and makes you go. The police departments don’t.

Then perhaps the police should invest in training instead of LAVs and AFVs.

Quote:

Law enforcement versus killing the enemy soldiers.

That's incredibly reductionist.

Quote:

Non violent protesters. Right. Which protests are you watching?

Standing Rock, where the image of an army of kitted out police with batons and AFVs was taken. The same Standing Rock where a cop blew a woman's arm off with a grenade.

Quote:

It doesn’t say any such thing in there. It does cover proportional response and self defense. Someone throwing rocks can get a different response than someone trying to set you on fire.

I'm sorry that the military doesn't specify molotovs in their handbooks. The ROE clearly cite that Officers have discretion and should use it in context to the warzone or mission.

Quote:

Some of the incidents are already violations of standards and training.

Brown is the only thing you have, I get that, but please stop pretending that opening fire into a public street was ok or in any way a legal response to an unarmed assailant who, according to some witnesses, was surrendering.

Quote:

but armchair quarterbacks want completely different standards and responses.

As opposed to armchair bootlickers, who want to change the facts and pretend that Brown was the one and only case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twocows

That doesn't contradict anything I said; were you agreeing with me?

I was adding to it because I felt it gave context to something I wanted to discuss anyway.

The PokéCommunity

Meta

Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.